This project investigates the question of whether it is morally justifiable to use genetic technology in order to bear a deaf child. Even though it may seem counterintuitive to hearing people, deaf people often desire to have deaf children. Reasons for this vary, but often include a deep longing to have a child who can fully participate in one’s linguistic and cultural community. Many view using genetic technology to ensure or create a child with a disability as harmful and a dereliction of parental duty; dismissing the desire for a deaf child as misguided at best. I begin by situating this desire for a deaf child in historical context, identifying and analyzing ethical claims regarding deaf education, eugenics, civil rights, and cochlear implant surgery. Following this, three arguments are analyzed to consider whether, in certain situations, it may be morally justifiable to use genetic technology to bear deaf children. The first is a consequentialist approach to genetic selection, using a variation of the Non-Identity argument to evaluate the potential harms and benefits to the child who is born deaf. For genetic alteration, I evaluate an argument with roots in deontology that considers the notion of bodily integrity as a principle of human dignity and autonomy, expanding it to include genomic integrity. The final chapter considers the question of deafness as a moral harm, including the question of harm within the family unit and harm to society.
I consider two major objections to these arguments: the child’s right to an open future, and conditions of exit. In the right to an open future argument, parents have a duty to ensure that undue restrictions are not placed on the child’s future. The conditions of exit argument asserts that parents have a duty to protect a child’s potential future interest in exiting her cultural community. I conclude that these objections rightfully present challenges to the three arguments I consider, but are currently insufficient to fully overcome them and need further refinement.

en_US

dc.language.iso

en_US

en_US

dc.subject

Deaf, genetics, disability, bioethics, philosophy, medical ethics

en_US

dc.subject.lcsh

dc.subject.lcsh

Deafness--Social aspects

dc.subject.lcsh

Deaf parents--Attitudes--Moral and ethical aspects

dc.subject.lcsh

Children of deaf parents

dc.subject.lcsh

Genetic engineering--Moral and ethical aspects

dc.subject.lcsh

Bioethics

dc.subject.lcsh

Medical ethics

dc.title

Quest for a Deaf Child: Ethics and Genetics

en_US

dc.type

Dissertation

en_US

dc.description.degree

Philosophy

en_US

dc.description.level

Doctoral

en_US

dc.description.department

University of New Mexico. Dept. of Philosophy

en_US

dc.description.advisor

Hannan, Barbara E.

dc.description.committee-member

Goodman, Russell B.

dc.description.committee-member

Thomson, Iain

dc.description.committee-member

Wilcox, Phyllis Perrin

dc.data.json

{ "@context": { "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#", "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#", "xsd": "http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#" }, "@graph": [ { "@id": "http://54.191.234.158/entities/resource/Bioethics", "@type": "http://schema.org/Intangible" }, { "@id": "http://54.191.234.158/entities/resource/Deafness--Social_aspects", "@type": "http://schema.org/Intangible" }, { "@id": "http://hdl.handle.net/1928/12876", "@type": "http://schema.org/CreativeWork", "http://purl.org/montana-state/library/associatedDepartment": { "@id": "http://54.191.234.158/entities/resource/University_of_New_Mexico.__Dept._of_Philosophy" }, "http://purl.org/montana-state/library/degreeGrantedForCompletion": "Philosophy", "http://purl.org/montana-state/library/hasEtdCommitee": { "@id": "http://54.191.234.158/entities/resource/1928/12876" }, "http://schema.org/about": [ { "@id": "http://54.191.234.158/entities/resource/Deaf_genetics_disability_bioethics_philosophy_medical_ethics" }, { "@id": "http://54.191.234.158/entities/resource/Children_of_deaf_parents" }, { "@id": "http://54.191.234.158/entities/resource/Deaf_parents--Attitudes--Moral_and_ethical_aspects" }, { "@id": "http://54.191.234.158/entities/resource/Bioethics" }, { "@id": "http://54.191.234.158/entities/resource/Deafness--Social_aspects" }, { "@id": "http://54.191.234.158/entities/resource/Genetic_engineering--Moral_and_ethical_aspects" }, { "@id": "http://54.191.234.158/entities/resource/Medical_ethics" } ], "http://schema.org/author": { "@id": "http://54.191.234.158/entities/resource/Burke_Teresa_Blankmeyer" }, "http://schema.org/dateCreated": "May 2011", "http://schema.org/datePublished": "2011-07-02", "http://schema.org/description": "This project investigates the question of whether it is morally justifiable to use genetic technology in order to bear a deaf child. Even though it may seem counterintuitive to hearing people, deaf people often desire to have deaf children. Reasons for this vary, but often include a deep longing to have a child who can fully participate in one\u2019s linguistic and cultural community. Many view using genetic technology to ensure or create a child with a disability as harmful and a dereliction of parental duty; dismissing the desire for a deaf child as misguided at best. I begin by situating this desire for a deaf child in historical context, identifying and analyzing ethical claims regarding deaf education, eugenics, civil rights, and cochlear implant surgery. Following this, three arguments are analyzed to consider whether, in certain situations, it may be morally justifiable to use genetic technology to bear deaf children. The first is a consequentialist approach to genetic selection, using a variation of the Non-Identity argument to evaluate the potential harms and benefits to the child who is born deaf. For genetic alteration, I evaluate an argument with roots in deontology that considers the notion of bodily integrity as a principle of human dignity and autonomy, expanding it to include genomic integrity. The final chapter considers the question of deafness as a moral harm, including the question of harm within the family unit and harm to society. \n\tI consider two major objections to these arguments: the child\u2019s right to an open future, and conditions of exit. In the right to an open future argument, parents have a duty to ensure that undue restrictions are not placed on the child\u2019s future. The conditions of exit argument asserts that parents have a duty to protect a child\u2019s potential future interest in exiting her cultural community. I conclude that these objections rightfully present challenges to the three arguments I consider, but are currently insufficient to fully overcome them and need further refinement.", "http://schema.org/inLanguage": "en_US", "http://schema.org/isPartOf": [ { "@id": "http://hdl.handle.net/1928/6700" }, { "@id": "http://hdl.handle.net/1928/11874" } ], "http://schema.org/name": "Quest for a Deaf Child: Ethics and Genetics" }, { "@id": "http://54.191.234.158/entities/resource/Deaf_genetics_disability_bioethics_philosophy_medical_ethics", "@type": "http://schema.org/Intangible" }, { "@id": "http://54.191.234.158/entities/resource/Children_of_deaf_parents", "@type": "http://schema.org/Intangible" }, { "@id": "http://54.191.234.158/entities/resource/Genetic_engineering--Moral_and_ethical_aspects", "@type": "http://schema.org/Intangible" }, { "@id": "http://54.191.234.158/entities/resource/Medical_ethics", "@type": "http://schema.org/Intangible" }, { "@id": "http://54.191.234.158/entities/resource/Burke_Teresa_Blankmeyer", "@type": "http://schema.org/Person" }, { "@id": "http://hdl.handle.net/1928/11874", "@type": "http://schema.org/WebSite" }, { "@id": "http://hdl.handle.net/1928/6700", "@type": "http://schema.org/WebSite" }, { "@id": "http://54.191.234.158/entities/resource/Deaf_parents--Attitudes--Moral_and_ethical_aspects", "@type": "http://schema.org/Intangible" } ]}